Evan Morgan, 2nd Viscount Tredegar

evan morgan

Evan Morgan, circa 1930s.  Poet, eccentric, and crypto-Luciferian infiltrator.


It does not escape the notice of this blogger that the subject of today’s post shares my surname.  The subject also happens to have been a horribly iniquitous person.  Fortunately, there is no direct kinship, as Evan Morgan begat no children.  Also, my own line of Morgans have been split off from the Welsh Morgans for many generations, having been in North America since the late 18th century.  We are the descendants of a fisherman named Thomas Rhydian Morgan who, along with his wife, Christina Kent Morgan, left Wales in 1786 and settled in the town of Shelburne in the maritime province of Nova Scotia, Canada.  Therefore if I have any consanguinity with this hideous fiend, it is extremely remote.  (Ouf!)

Something I was not well aware of until I read the testimony of Claudio Gagne-Bevilacqua was the surprising degree to which occultists, pagans, and devil-worshippers had infiltrated the Catholic Church.  It is often said that Freemasons, communists, and various other enemies of the Church have, for decades, been worming their way into the ranks of the clergy, wreaking their subversion from within.  And this is commonly accepted.  But when it comes to tales of “Black Masses in the Vatican,” it almost becomes too much: for many Catholics, this is just too bizarre and unbelievable.  It comes across like something out of a novel by Father Malachi Martin—and Fr. Martin was a suspicious character himself.  His loyalties seemed to be forever shifting; sometimes he was a modernist when it suited him, and other times he was a traditionalist.  He contradicted himself on many matters, and much of the time it almost seemed as if he was making things up as he went along.  So whenever something carries “a whiff of Fr. Malachi Martin,” one is tempted to dismiss it as outlandish.

Such was my original reaction when I first began reading the transcripts of the Gagne-Bevilacqua interviews.  I thought to myself: “purement fantastique.  Incroyable!”  But once I began researching his claims, to see if certain points might be corroborated, I was surprised to find that much of the people and events he mentioned adhere quite closely to recorded history.  In the next post, I will provide a summary of the two weeks he spent in Rome in the summer of 1917.  But first I would like to share what my research revealed—particularly as it regards his mention of  a certain Evan Morgan: the unsavory and ghoulish person whose last name sends shivers up my spine: to think that he and I might share a common ancestor, somewhere back among the Morgans of Wales ages ago.

Evan Frederic Morgan was the scion of a wealthy family of the English nobility.  Like many families of the aristocracy, the Morgans were what might be termed “fashionably eccentric and decadent.”  In fact, they took their eccentricity and decadence rather seriously.  His mother seemed to believe she was some sort of bird (an actual bird, that is, and nothing to do with the British slang for a good-looking girl).  His grandfather, Frederick Courtenay Morgan, stood as a so-called “Conservative” Member of Parliament—and yet he was also a good friend of Richard Monckton Milnes, who owned one of the largest collections of Victorian-era pornography and was a patron of the poet Algernon Swinburne, a man of many perversions who composed much blasphemous anti-Christian verse, including a sneering condemnation of the Catholic Church entitled “Locusta.”  Verily, the Morgan family was in the top tier of an English upper class that shewed an outward conservatism but led a secret life of terrible debaucheries.

Evan Morgan himself would continue the trend.  As a young man at university, he converted to Roman Catholicism.  But his conversion was insincere and superficial.  What Morgan liked about the Catholic Church were its regal and extravagant trappings: the sublime atmospherics of the Latin Mass, the lace surplices and gold-tinged chasubles, the Gothic architecture, and the high ceremony of the papal court.  What he did not like, however, was the Catholic faith itself.  He was an awful despiser of Christ—so much so that he became an avid occultist.  At around the same time he converted to Catholicism (the period when he was at Eton College at Oxford), Morgan also joined a Luciferian society known as the Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.), which is where he met and befriended the then-leader of the O.T.O, Aleister Crowley.  Crowley became Morgan’s mentor; Morgan was Crowley’s ace pupil.  Crowley deemed him “Adept of Adepts” (referring to a title which, according to my research, seems to be considered a high position in the rankings of ceremonial magicians.  I did not research the occult too extensively; a Catholic must be prudent in these matters.  The more one investigates the dark side, the more one runs the risk of coming face to face with the abyss).

Morgan thus began to lead a double life.  On a typical Saturday evening, Morgan and Crowley would meet up in London, to smoke opium and to cruise the city’s squalid homosexual districts (both men were sodomites).  Their night would culminate back at Crowley’s lodgings, where they would undertake “mystical” readings of the Kabbalah.  Then they would set up an altar, with hexagrams, idols, and candles, and they would try out various unspeakable satanic rituals—first at midnight (“the witching hour”), then later at three o’clock (“the hour of the wolf,” or “the devil’s hour”).   The next morning, a tired and bleary-eyed Morgan would show up for Mass at the Brompton Oratory to blasphemously receive Holy Communion.  His close association with Crowley lasted between 1912 and 1913.  During this time, Morgan informed Crowley that his ultimate goal was to summon a living demon.  Together, they never succeeded.  Crowley left the country in 1914 for Paris and then the United States.  Morgan remained in England: writing bad poetry and keeping up appearances among the London aristocracy (when Aldous Huxley satirized high society in his novel Crome Yellow, he modeled the most immoral character after Evan Morgan).  Morgan joined the Welsh Guards when the war broke out, and spent a year and half stationed in France.  Most British soldiers were expected to spend three years in service, but Morgan used family connections to weasel out of a long-term obligation.

tredegar

The young Evan Morgan during World War I, with his father Courtenay Morgan, the 1st Viscount Tredegar.  The advantages of privilege: the elder Morgan spent most of the war on his private yacht, which the Royal Navy had converted into a floating hospital.  Meanwhile the son served a shortened term in combat.


Upon returning to England from the front, Morgan rekindled his acquaintances in occult circles.  On a visit to Glasgow, he began a friendship with a mysterious older woman named Myriam MacKellar, who claimed to be the Jewish wife of a wealthy Scot, and also to be an expert on the Hindu Vedic texts.

In 1916, Morgan made a pilgrimage to Rome, where he met up with an influential group of British-born clergy in the curia.  He presented himself as a connoisseur of the liturgy, and he managed to charm them with his personality, a false display of piety, and a smattering of acquired expertise.  Using his family’s wealth and status as leverage, he procured for himself a spot in the Vatican as a papal chamberlain.

It is important to note that no one in Rome was likely aware of his secret life as an occultist.  It was 1916.  Europe was in the midst of a catastrophic war.  The doings of the eccentric members of the English aristocracy would simply not have shown up on the Vatican’s radar.  It is also useful to consider that the pope at the time, Pope Benedict XV, was a holy pope and a staunch traditionalist.  He was the author of the prophetic encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, in which he warned of the coming end of civilization—the natural result of Europe forgetting her Catholic roots and embracing the heedless nihilism of modern philosophy.  (Miserere nobis; his assessment was correct).  Nevertheless, the historical fact remains.  This same man who decorated his home with inverted crucifixes and was a known friend of Aleister Crowley, also happened to be an actual Chamberlain of the Sword and Cape in the very court of Pope Benedict XV.  Normally we might be able to look on this as nothing other than a tragic accident of history.  But in early July of 1917, Evan Morgan traveled to Rome to mark the newly-minted refinements which had been made to the pope’s Prefecture.  The Vatican had become a veritable convention of liturgical experts and enthusiasts.  Also in Rome at this time were two young seminarians: Claudio Gagne-Bevilacqua and Alessandro Falchi.  What Claudio Gagne-Bevilacqua witnessed there, he described as “the most harrowing event of my entire life.  It will haunt me to the grave.”

lord-tredegar-evan-morgan-2518889

Evan Morgan (left) with parrot, circa 1920s.  Morgan owned a menagerie with many exotic birds, and was a trainer of carrier pigeons during World War II.  He came from a family with an avian obsession.  His mother, Lady Katherine, reportedly built bird’s nests to human scale at the family estate, Tredegar House, where she would sit in these nests like a hen.  Her son’s poetry was rank: “The birds of love with plumage rare / Sped in circles ‘bout my hair.”

Next post

La Nuit Américaine

Before I commenced this blog, I was aware that there were several discrepancies between my source material and the more commonly-accepted chronology of Pope Paul VI’s survival.  I have been graciously contacted by several readers in the Francophone world who have pointed these out—and the contradictions are more dire than I first realized.  This poses a problem.  There appear to be two serious differences between the versions, and they are differences which do not reconcile.

The first difference is that the mainstream narrative claims Pope Paul and his double were switched out interchangeably all the way up until 1975, when the double took over entirely.  Meanwhile it says that Pope Paul stayed at the Vatican and did not go into exile until 1981.  My material (mostly the testimony of Claudio Gagne-Bevilacqua) claims Pope Paul left the Vatican in 1972 shortly after declaring “the smoke of Satan has entered the Catholic Church,” and never returned.  My material says he was being sheltered in a Cretan monastery as early as the mid-1970s, having spent a brief period in the city of Alexandria in Egypt.

The second area of contradiction is where the mainstream narrative claims Pope Paul was drugged in order to be made compliant in carrying out the modernist program of Vatican II.  My material, however, says that rather than being drugged, Pope Paul was weighed down by a terrible demonic oppression, the result of a hex (or curse) which had been placed on him by occultists in 1935.  It was this demonic oppression which gradually harassed and coerced the young Giovanni Battista Montini into modernism: first as an influential member of the Roman Curia, and later during his tenure as Archbishop of Milan.  There would’ve been no need to drug him, as he was burdened by demons, and only very infrequently was he able (by the grace of God) to wrest himself from their awful sway.

There are also a few minor discrepancies, such as whether or not John Paul II knew of the double, and other quibbles.  But these points are less troublesome.  (In the case of JP2 being ignorant of the double, my material attests to it only via hearsay, so it doesn’t quite make or break the veracity of the testimony).  Nevertheless, the brute fact of the two major contradictions remains.  What to do with this?  Was Claudio Gagne-Bevilacqua just a crazy old man, rambling on at length over four days of interviews in a senile delirium?  Or is his testimony at least partly reliable: dredging up portions of the truth insofar he could recall it, with the rest being culled from some nebulous half-dream or the vicissitudes of his mind’s whimsy?  Or are the accounts of Pope Paul’s survival like the remembrances in the movie Rashomon, where the same event is witnessed by four people who give differing versions?

Another possibility was suggested by one of my correspondents.  He remarked, “I do not know if I should believe this whole story, but if it is untrue, it is a very interesting novel.”  This comment piqued my curiosity.  I began to wonder if, somehow, the notes and transcripts and clippings I found in my father’s study were supposed have been the basis for some kind of creative writing project.  I gave it some consideration—but in the end, it doesn’t seem likely.  Firstly, I found them in a filing cabinet dedicated strictly to his journalistic endeavors.  Secondly (as I have said of him before), my father was a rabid cinephile.  He did, in fact, have some small portions of creative writing stored away in one of his desk drawers, but they were all the beginnings of screenplays—not novels or ficciones.  My father, it seems, occasionally decided he would like to write for the movies.  But shortly after starting these screenplays, he would give up on them.  None of them go past twenty pages.  And the subject matter is relatively light.  They’re rather boilerplate, with nothing of the originality or innovation of the French New Wave which he so admired.  The most “serious” of the lot is an espionage thriller about a woman in her forties in Soviet Russia named Lyudmila Trebetskaya who is a sympathizer for the West.  The description of Lyudmila reads: “a savvy and attractive Moscow socialite greatly resembling Jacqueline Bisset.”  It’s pure fluff, I’m afraid: John le Carré-derivative fluff.   Father was an excellent and intelligent man, but sadly, creative writing was not among his talents (with all due apologies to my sire.  It may also seem that I speak of him as if he’s deceased.  He is not, but unfortunately he has Alzheimer’s disease and is “no longer there,” so to speak.  I have no recourse to him in verifying the contents of the folders).

So no: Father does not seem to have focused his meager creative energies on anything nearly as extensive, intricate, or involved as the two massive manila folders documenting the long saga of Pope Paul VI.  And besides, the material dovetails rather perfectly with too many actual events and persons of the twentieth century in the Catholic Church.  The material does not present itself along the lines of, say, the sensationalized novels of Fr. Malachi Martin (which he termed “factions”—his portmanteau for blending fact and fiction), nor does it appear to be anything like an “alternative history,” such as the popular series The Man in the High Castle, or things of that nature.  On the contrary: it all seems to have taken place in the very same past as our own, a past which has duly followed time’s arrow straight up to the present day.  With that in mind, I do not believe the material to be a fiction.

I myself might be to blame for the “storytelling” quality.  The transcripts themselves are long and rambling, and much of the time they can be downright banal.  Thus far I have been attempting to trim off the tedium and give concise summaries of the history; only in the last post did I try to let the interview transcript speak more for itself.  (Perhaps I will attempt to do more of that in the future, where portions of the interview are high in content.  The first paragraph of the last post, however, where I summarized the childhood details of Claudio Gagne-Bevilacqua, was necessary, as I saw fit to condense into several sentences what it took him a couple pages of inconsequential chatter to relate).

Having taken into account the conflicts that exist between the narratives, I concede that my material is lesser.  One of my correspondents informs me: “Fr. Basile Harambillet, a lawyer of the Roman Rota, maintained until his death in the early ’80s that he had been able to confirm that the true Paul VI was a prisoner in the Vatican throughout the double’s period of activity.”  Admittedly, my material does not come from an esteemed canon lawyer.  It comes from a self-described “simple man” who was essentially only the butler.  However, I have decided that I will publish my material in full because I believe it is quite compelling in certain parts.  Perhaps others will find it compelling as well.  I think the testimony of Claudio Gagne-Bevilacqua contains much to recommend it.  In fact, on the two main issues where we find discrepancies, I find it to be more satisfying.  In charity, I would pose the following two questions:

1.  Why was Pope Paul VI drugged, and why was he alternated with his double? Wouldn’t the modernist conclave in 1963 simply have elected a known modernist?  It seems it would’ve been easier for them to elevate one of their own, rather than drug and incapacitate someone disloyal to the cause.  Besides, Cardinal Montini had evinced modernist tendencies long before his coronation as pope.  Was he also being drugged then?

2 .  Why was Pope Paul VI kept prisoner in the Vatican until 1981? If he was miraculously protected from Freemasonic assassins for so long, why did he have to go into exile?  The protection could’ve just been extended until the present day.

To my lights, my father’s material answers both of these questions rather pragmatically.  First, it maintains that Pope Paul VI was not drugged into submission by the Vatican cabal, but that he was accepted by them as a longtime modernist, having shown progressive tendencies for more than twenty years.  This was effected by a demonic oppression which lessened his free will and coaxed him into error and heresy.

Secondly, it says he went into exile almost as soon as his Vatican manipulus realized he could no longer be trusted to tow the progressive line.  In 1968 he issued Humanae Vitae, which went against the modernist grain.  From that point on, they lost their confidence in him, and lit upon the decision to replace him with a double, since there was already someone from his past who was known to bear a striking resemblance to him.  When Pope Paul finally freed himself from his demonic oppression and brazenly told the truth (about “the smoke of Satan”), they promptly arranged to have him killed.  He found out about the plot and went on the lam, which is when they propped up the double in his place.  In fact, it was the double who exhibited “drugged up” behavior, for the simple reason that he had been a drug addict in the mid-1960s.

Pope Paul’s survival has indeed been miraculous, but rather than being miraculously protected, my material presents it as a “synergistic” cooperation between the divine will of God and Pope Paul’s own free will, which he recovered after he freed himself from his demonic oppression.  Once he was out from under their influence, he showed himself to be, at heart, a good and holy man: faithful to tradition and hostile to modernism.  And when he returns to Rome and takes up the fisherman’s chair, the Church will at long last have a good and holy pope.

All that said, I concede that most believers in the survival of Paul VI will probably be disinclined to accept my material in toto due to the differences.  So be it.  But hopefully it will unveil, at least, some portions of the truth which have heretofore lain dormant.  Perhaps it can serve, not as an alternative, but as a modest supplement, however flawed.  The existing narrative is persuasive on many counts—particularly where it coincides with the prophecies of Fatima (my own material hints not only at Fatima, but also a perennial Catholic prophecy known as the Three Days of Darkness, which I will get to later).  I myself am grateful for being pointed to the truly exhaustive compendium of research, writing, and translations undertaken by a brilliant documentarian Français named Jean-Baptiste André.  His work forms the most comprehensive resource on the internet on this subject.  With his permission, here are several links to his websites.

Pope Paul VI’s Survival and the Secret of Fatima (English)

La Survie du Pape Paul VI (French)

Paul VI and the Mystery of Iniquity (French movie w/ English subtitles)

My original inclination still remains: to publish an entire summary of my father’s material.  I will put it all out for the consumption of anyone who might still be interested, and decidat lector—my Latin is probably garbled there, but: “let the reader decide.”  Let everyone separate the wheat from the chaff in this blog according to however they see fit.  In the words of a “tedious old fool”: “If circumstances lead me, I will find / Where truth is hid, though it were hid indeed / Within the centre.” (Wm. Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2).